Re: Belgian Radar-Visual

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:17:53 +0100 (MET)
Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:46:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual
>Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:22:37 +0100>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>>From: Christophe Meessen <meessen@cppm.in2p3.fr>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual>>Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:56:01 +0100 (MET)>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>>>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual
I said:
>>>>Remember my remarks about a triangular object that had been>>>>witnessed at the exact same spot where the F16s detected the>>>>erratic signal?>>Which would explain the mystery better than any other>>explanation.
Christophe said:
>Sorry. But I can't let this pass. According to the second book on>the Belgian UFO flap that discusses visual contact data closely,>there is no triangular object reported where the F16 detected the>erratic signal.
I will simply throw in this from the secretarial staff of the=B7
Belgian Air Force staff.
<begin>
REPORT ON THE OBSERVATION OF UFOs DURING THE NIGHT OF MARCH
30-31, 1990=B7
1.Introduction=B7
a. This report gives an overall view of the reports from the
concerned Air Force units and of the reports from ocular
witnesses of the gendarmerie patrols, about the unknown phenomena
watched in the air space (hereafter called UFOs), south of the
axis Brussels-Tirlemont, during the night of March 30-31, 1990.=B7
b. The observations, visual and radar, were of such a nature that
the take off of two F-16 of the 1 J Wing has been decided, in
order to identify these UFOs.=B7
c. This report has been established by Major Lambrechts, VS/3
Ctl-Met 1.=B7
=B7
2. Context.=B7
Since the beginning of December 1989, strange phenomena have been=B7
regularly noticed in the Belgian air space. The Air Force has at
its disposal several ocular witnesses, most of them having been
informed by the gendarmerie. The Air Force radar stations could
not confirm, in any case, up to March 30-31, these sightings, and
the presence of the UFOs could never be established by the
fighters sent in that order. The Air Force staff has been able
to produce several hypotheses about the origin of these UFOs. The
presence or the testing of B-2 or F-117A (stealth), RPV (Remotely
Piloted Vehicles), ULM (Ultra Light Motorized) and AWACS in the
Belgian air space during the facts can be excluded.=B7
The cabinet of the MLV (Ministry of National Defense) has been
informed about these discoveries. In the meantime, the SOBEPS
(Societe Belge d'Etude des Phenomenes Spatiaux) got in touch with
the MLV, in order that the MLV backed the SOBEPS in its inquiries
about this phenomenon. This request has been accepted, and after
that the Air Force has regularly cooperated with this society.=B7
3. Chronological summary of the events during the night of March
30-31, 1990.
Note: local time.
March 30:
23 h 00: The supervisor responsible (MC) for the Glons CRC
(Control Reporting Center) receives a phone call from Mr. A.
Renkin, gendarmerie MDL, who certifies to see, from his home at
Ramillies, three unusual lights towards Thorembais-Gembloux.
These lights are distinctly more intense than stars and planets,
they don't move and are located at the apexes of an equilateral
triangle. Their color is changing: red, green and yellow.=B7
23 h 05: The Glons CRC asks the Wavre gendarmerie to send a
patrol at this place in order to confirm this sighting.=B7
23 h 10: A new call from Mr. Renkin points out a new phenomenon:
three other lights move towards the first triangle. One of these
lights is far brighter than the others. The Glons CRC observes
in the meantime an unidentified radar contact, about 5 km north
of the Beauvechain airport. The contacts moves at about 25 knots
towards west.
23 h 28: A gendarmerie patrol including, among others, Captain
Pinson, is on the premises and confirms Mr. Renkin's sightings.
Captain Pinson describes the observed phenomenon as follows: the
bright points have the dimension of a big star(*); their color
changes continually. The prevailing color is red; then it changes
itself in blue, green, yellow and white, but not always in the
same order. The lights are very clear, as if they were signals:
this enables to distinguish them from stars.
23 h 30 - 23 h 45: The three new lights, in the meantime, have
drawn closer to the first observed triangle. In their turn, after
a series of erratic moves, they arrange themselves also in
triangular formation.
In the meantime, the Glons CRC observes the phenomenon on radar.=B7
23 h 49 - 23 h 59: The Semmerkaze TCC/RP (Traffic Center Control/=B7
Reporting Post) confirms in its turn to have a clear radar
contact at the same position pointed out by the Glons CRC.=B7
=B7
23 h 56: After prerequisite coordination with the SOC II, and
since all conditions are fulfilled to make the QRA take off, the
Glons CRC gives the scramble order to the 1 J Wing.=B7
23 h 45 - 00 h 15: The bright points are still clearly observed
from ground. Their respective position does not change. The whole
formation seems to move slowly in comparison with the stars. The
ocular witnesses on ground notice that the UFOs send from time
to time brief and more intense luminous signals. In the mean
time, two weaker luminous points are observed towards Eghezee.
Those, as the others, have also brief and erratic moves.=B7
March 31:
00 h 05: Two F-16, QRA of J Wing, AL 17 and AL 23, take off.
Between 00 h 07 and 00 h 54, under control of the CRC, on the
whole nine interception attempts have been undertaken by the
fighters. The planes have had, several times, brief radar
contacts on the targets designated by the CRC. In three cases,
the pilots managed to lock on the target during a few seconds,
which, each time, induced a drastic change in the comportment of
the UFOs. In no case, the pilots have had a visual contact with
the UFOs.
00 h 13: First lock on the target designated by the CRC.
Position: "on the nose" 6 NM (Nautical Miles), 9000 feet,
direction: 250. The target speed changes within minimum time from
150 to 970 knots, altitude coming down from 9000 to 5000 feet,
then up to 11000 feet, and, shortly after, down to ground level.
From this results a "break lock" after some seconds, the pilot
losing the radar contact. The Glons radar informs, at the moment
of the break lock, that the fighters are above the target
position.
+/- 00 h 19 - 00 h 30:
The Semmerkaze TCC as well as the Glons CRC have lost contact
with the target. From time to time a contact appears in the
region, but they are too few to have a clear track. In the
meantime, the pilots contact on VHF the radio of the civilian air
traffic, in order to coordinate their moves with the Brussels
TMA.
The radio contact on UHF is maintained with the Glons CRC.
00 h 30: AL 17 has a radar contact at 5000 feet, 20 NM away
Beauvechain (Nivelles), position 255. The target moves at very
high speed (740 knots). The lock on lasts during 6 seconds, and,
at the break lock, the signal of a jamming appears on the scope.
+/- 00 h 30: The ground witnesses see three times the F-16 pass
along. During the third pass, they see the planes turning in
circles at the center of the great formation initially seen. At
the same time, they notice the disappearance of the little
triangle, while the brightest, western point of the big triangle
moves very fast, probably up. This point emits intense red
signals, in a repetitive way, during the maneuver. The two other
points of the great triangle disappear shortly after. The clear
points above Eghezee are no longer visible, and only the western
brightest point of the triangle can be observed.=B7
<end>
Apparently there were several objects in the sky that
were visually reported to be maneuvering during the
F16 chase. Is it too much to ask to consider that
one or more of them had simply switched off their
lights, which would explain their sudden disappearance,
as described, as well as the erratic radar trace that
cannot be explained by any known natural phenomenon
or radar error?
Hence my remark:
>>Which would explain the mystery better than any other>>explanation.>Henny, it is really sad you can't read the two articles.>This would clarify a lot of points.
I can read them when someone scans them in and posts them
somewhere. I can read French.
>>>Yes, but see above. And did the eyewitnesses report the UFO>>>performing the same merry capers as appeared on the radar? I>>>think not.>There was no ground visual contacts beside moving lights. Lights>were more in intense wobbling than moving fast from side to side>of the sky. It was though a very uncommon light behaviors which>suggested it was not stars. But lights did not show extraordinary>displacements as would the UFO speed estimation based on the F16>recording yield.
See above, several objects suddenly disappeared from view. Any
military pilot will tell you that the first things he does when
he doesn't want to be detected by a potential hostile pursuer is
to switch off his lights.
>I wish this discussion returns to a wise and rational ground.
Yes, and I might add a common sense ground as well.
>Henny, It would be a mistake to put into question the whole>Belgian UFO flap and the 2000 testimonies simply because we have>to discard the F16 evidence.>Some skeptics and the belgian defense minister officially did so,>but this is an error. Who cares what people say. We are>conducting an investigation, we are totally free and we are all>searching the truth whatever the path we take.>We have to respect any working hypothesis one choose as starting>point to do his investigation as long as he remains OBJECTIVE and>RATIONAL.
Encore.
>So we HAVE TO drop the F16 data as EVIDENCE of the presence of a>UFO simply because it COULD be a natural phenomenon.
What natural phenomenon produces a jamming signal? What natural
phenomenon accelerates after radar lock through the sound
barrier, making three 70 degree turns and on altitudes between 0
and 11,000 feet?
What natural phenomenon does this, Christophe?
And while you're at, analyses by Dr. James McDonald
tell me that only heavy temperature inversions can
influence radar signals.
These were the atmospheric conditions of the night:
'A slight temperature inversion at ground, and another, as
slight, at 3000 feet.'
And as you can see, these altitudes do not coincide with the
radar trace that I presented. So why is the temperature inversion
explanation brought up in the first place?
Are we putting a square peg in a round hole?
>We are searching evidences and we only have evidences when we can>discard any rational explanation. Spending more time on defending>or attacking this case is loosing your time and energy. What you>can do though is check the argumentation concluding to a>possible natural phenomenon.>It might have been a UFO, but we will never now for sure now. It>is bad news for everybody, even for the skeptics, because we can>always say it might still have been a UFO.>Happily the Belgian UFO flap has plenty more valuable testimonies>and there are still many people who didn't testified for various>reasons.
I hope one day they will come forward and add their experiences
to the database.
>Bien cordialement,>Ch.Meessen
La meme et merci beaucoup malgre tout.
__________________________________________
/ Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \
Henny van der Pluijm
hvdp@worldonline.nl
Technology Pages
http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp
\______________________________________/